101 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 25 Jun freebie \ on: Nubank Partners with Lightspark for Lightning and UMA - News - Lightspark lightning
Lightning Address Inter-op
UMA addresses are valid Lightning Addresses when the leading $ is stripped. Receiving VASPs who choose to support plain LNURL-PAY transactions (which is a subset of UMA) should treat an incoming LNURLP request to a receiver without a leading $ as a request to pay the receiver directly via LNURL-PAY. This way, users can still have a single user name compatible with both UMA and LNURL, while keeping a clear distinction between the two for cases where a VASP has to understand regulatory requirements.
-- https://docs.uma.me/uma-standard/uma-addresses (emphasis mine)
Mhh, so anyone with UMA could use Lightning directly if the recipient supports it.
However, this is a BIG if since I guess for tradfi (for which this seems to be built with all this compliance architecture), compliance providers are pretty important. So I am worried that the plan of UMA is to embrace, extend and extinguish lightning addresses when most people use UMA and the sender stops supporting LNURL.
If this is built for tradfi and compliance in mind, it doesn't make sense for them to allow sending to someone which isn't using UMA.
write
preview
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 25 Jun
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 25 Jun freebie
So this means I have accepted the truth?
reply